FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the matter of:

    OHIO NEWSPAPER ORGANIZATION;

THE TOLEDO BLADE; THE (CANTON) REPOSITORY;
THE (CLEVELAND) PLAIN DEALER; THE
COLUMBUS DISPATCH; THE CINCINNATI MUR NO. ____
ENQUIRER; THE DAYTON DAILY NEWS; THE
AKRON BEACON JOURNAL; THE (YOUNGSTOWN)
VINDICATOR; ROB PORTMAN; and LEE FISHER

COMPLAINT

1. Dan La Botz, the 2010 Socialist Party of Ohio candidate for the United States Senate in
Ohio, brings this Complaint to the Federal Election Commission (hereinafter, FEC or
“Commission”) against the Ohio Newspaper Organization (ONO), a for-profit association of
eight for-profit corporations organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, Rob Portman, the
Republican Party’s candidate for the United States Senate in Ohio, and Lee Fisher, the
Democratic Party’s candidate for the United States Senate in Ohio, for violations of the Federal
Election Campaign Act (FECA).

COMPLAINANT

2. Dan La Botz is the Socialist Party of Ohio’s candidate for Ohio’s 2010 United States
Senate seat. He is qualified under Ohio law for the 2010 general election ballot and will be
formally listed on Ohio’s ballots throughout the state as the Socialist Party of Ohio’s candidate
for United States Senate. He is running against Lee Fisher, the Democratic Party nominee, Rob
Portman, the Republican Party nominee, Eric Deaton, the Constitution Party’s nominee, and
Michael Pryce, an independent, for the United States Senate in Ohio. Mr. La Botz’s mailing
address is: Dan La Botz, 3503 Middleton Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45220.

RESPONDENTS

3. The Ohio Newspaper Organization (ONO) is a for-profit, unincorporated business

association consisting of the eight largest newspapers in Ohio. These eight newspapers are all
for-profit corporations organized under the laws of Ohio, and all benefit financially from the
operations of ONO. The ONO’s purpose is to share news stories between its eight members and
jointly participate in reporting the news for the profit of its members. ONO’s members are all
jointly financially vested in ONO’s decisions and actions, and all jointly profit from ONO’s
decisions and actions. ONO’s and its eight members sponsorship of the senatorial debates
1 

 
between Rob Portman, the Republican candidate, and Lee Fisher, the Democratic candidate,
benefit ONO and its eight members financially by creating news and increasing readership.

4. The Toledo Blade, the (Canton) Repository, the (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, the Columbus
Dispatch, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Dayton Daily News, the Akron Beacon Journal, and the
(Youngstown) Vindicator are the eight corporate members of ONO. All of these news
organizations participate in ONO’s decisions, all are financially benefitted by ONO’s decisions,
and all are individually and jointly responsible for ONO’s actions. The mailing addresses of the
eight corporate news organizations joined in a business association known as ONO are:

The Akron Beacon Journal

44 East Exchange Street
Akron, OH 44308

The Toledo Blade Company

541 N. Superior Street
Toledo, OH 43660

The (Canton) Repository

500 Market Avenue South
Canton, OH 44702

The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

Plain Dealer Plaza
1801 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114-2198

The Columbus Dispatch

34 South Third Street
Columbus, OH 43215

The Cincinnati Enquirer

312 Elm Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202

The Dayton Daily News

Cox Ohio Publishing Media Center
1611 South Main Street
Dayton, OH 45409

The (Youngstown) Vindicator

107 Vindicator Square
Youngstown, OH 44503
 

2 

 
5. Rob Portman is the Republican Party’s candidate for Ohio’s 2010 United States Senate
seat. His campaign’s mailing address is: Portman for Senate, PO Box 39, Terrace Park, OH
45174.

6. Lee Fisher is the Democratic Party’s candidate for Ohio’s 2010 United States Senate seat.
His campaign’s mailing address is: Fisher for Ohio, PO Box 1418, Columbus, OH 43216.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On September 1, 2010, ONO and its corporate members announced that they were
sponsoring a series of debates between Lee Fisher, the Democratic Party’s candidate for Ohio’s
United States Senate seat, and Rob Portman, the Republican Party’s candidate for Ohio’s United
States Senate seat. See U.S. Senate candidate agree to three televised debates, Columbus
Dispatch, September 1, 2010 (Attachment 1). The three debates are to be sponsored by ONO
and its members, and all will be televised by either by independent broadcast operators or
broadcast operators owned by or affiliated with ONO members. Negotiations between the
major-party candidates for United States Senate in Ohio and ONO took place beginning in June
2010, see Letter from Marion H. Little, Jr. to Mark R. Brown, dated September 14, 2010
(Attachment 2) (“ONO began to put together its proposal for the instant debate in June 2010”).

8. The debates negotiated by ONO, its corporate members and the Fisher and Portman
campaigns have been formally scheduled to be held in Cleveland, Toledo and Columbus during
the month of October 2010.

9. The first debate is scheduled to be held in Toledo, Ohio on October 4, 2010 at 7 PM at a

local public high school. See Fisher and Portman spar on Oct 4 in Toledo on live television, The
Toledo Blade, Sep. 8, 2010 (Attachment 3). The second debate is scheduled to be held in
Cleveland on October 8, 2010, at noon at the City Club of Cleveland. See U.S. Senate candidate
agree to three televised debates, Columbus Dispatch, September 1, 2010 (Attachment 1). The
third debate is scheduled to be held in Columbus on October 12, 2010 at 8 pm as a “studio
debate,” see U.S. Senate candidate agree to three televised debates, Columbus Dispatch,
September 1, 2010 (Attachment 1), with the precise location of the studio not yet announced.
See Attachment 4.

10. All three debates are to be broadcast live on local television. The first and second
debates in Toledo and Cleveland will be carried by ONN. See Attachment 4. The first debate in
Toledo will also be carried by Toledo television station WTVG (Channel 13). See Fisher and
Portman spar on Oct 4 in Toledo on live television, The Toledo Blade, Sep. 8, 2010 (Attachment
3). The third debate in Columbus will be carried by ONN and Columbus television station
10TV. See Attachment 4. According to the Columbus Dispatch, the two local television stations
broadcasting the debates are “local TV partners of three of the eight newspapers sponsoring the

3 

 
debates ….” See U.S. Senate candidate agree to three televised debates, Columbus Dispatch,
September 1, 2010 (Attachment 1).

11. A panel of four newspaper reporters drawn from the eight members of ONO will question
the two candidates at all three debates. See U.S. Senate candidate agree to three televised
debates, Columbus Dispatch, September 1, 2010 (Attachment 1). The moderator will be a
journalist affiliated with one of the eight newspapers’ partnering TV stations. Id.

12. Complainant, Dan La Botz, is duly qualified to appear on Ohio’s ballot as the Socialist
Party of Ohio’s candidate for Ohio’s United States Senate seat for the 2010 general election.

13. The Socialist Party USA, of which the Socialist Party of Ohio is a member, is a direct
descendant of Eugene Debs’s Socialist Party of America. Eugene Debs ran for President five
times from 1900 to 1920. See RAY GINGER, THE BENDING CROSS: A BIOGRAPHY OF EUGENE
VICTOR DEBS (1949) (recounting Debs’s presidential campaigns). In 1912, Debs won 6% of the
popular vote—more than 900,000 votes all told. See JAMES CHACE, 1912: WILSON, TAFT &
DEBS—THE ELECTION THAT CHANGED THE COUNTRY (2004) (describing the 1912 presidential
election).

14. Historically, the Socialist Party of America has performed better in Ohio than in most
other states. In 1912, for example, Debs won 8.69% of the vote (90,144 votes) in Ohio’s
presidential election. See 1912 Presidential General Election Results—Ohio
(http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/). In 1920, while serving time in federal prison for
protesting the Great War, Debs won 57,147 votes in Ohio, or 2.83 % of those cast for President.
See 1920 Presidential Election Results—Ohio (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/).1 In 1932,
Norman Thomas, running on the Socialist Party ticket, continued what Debs started by winning
64,094 votes (2.46%) in Ohio. See 1932 Presidential Election Results—Ohio
2
(http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/).

15. A significant percentage of Americans, and a large percentage of Americans living in

Ohio, favor the ideas expressed by Socialist Party candidates. A Gallup Poll from February of
                                                            
1
Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party have a unique connection to the State of Ohio. Debs, after all, was arrested in
Canton, Ohio for delivering a speech criticizing the war effort in 1918. See Ginger, supra, at 377. He was charged
with espionage, lost in the Supreme Court, see Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919), and spent several years
in prison. See GINGER, supra.

2
It was largely because of Socialist successes that the Ohio legislature changed its ballot access laws to preclude
minor parties. According to Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, the Socialist Labor Party in 1946
surprisingly won 13,885 votes for a United States Senate seat and 11,203 votes for Governor. See Richard Winger,
Ballot Format: Must Candidates be Treated Equally?, 45 CLEVE. ST. L. REV. 87, 90 (1997). This development,
Winger reports, did not please Ohio’s legislators. Id. In an effort to keep Socialist candidates off the ballot and stop
Henry Wallace’s “progressive” campaign for President in 1948, the Ohio legislature in 1947 erased party labels
from minor candidates’ ballot-listings and attempted to prevent independent presidential candidates from using
Ohio’s petition process. Id. at 90-91.
4 

 
2010 reports that “socialism” is viewed favorably by 36% of Americans. Pew and Rasmussen
polls have produced similar results. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-
positively-
americans.aspx;http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_
2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism;
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1583/political-rhetoric-capitalism-socialism-militia-family-values-
states-rights.

16. Because of unconstitutional ballot access restrictions existing in Ohio before 2008, see
Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006); Libertarian Party of Ohio
v. Brunner, 567 F. Supp.2d 1006 (S.D. Ohio 2008), minor-party candidates, including Socialists,
have been routinely and unconstitutionally prevented from running for office since the 1940s.

17. Ohio’s unconstitutional exclusion of minor-party candidates for sixty-plus years from its
ballots has led Ohio’s primary news outlets, including the eight corporate members of ONO, to
habitually and presumptively focus coverage exclusively on the two major parties. Ohio news
organizations, especially those who have joined to form the ONO, have made a habit of ignoring
candidates who are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Parties. The first poll
that even mentioned Dan La Botz (conducted by the Columbus Dispatch), for example, was not
released until September 5, 2010, see Darrel Rowland, More Ohioans plan to vote for
Republicans in the election, and they are excited to do so. But a lot can happen before Nov. 2,
The Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 5, 2010 (Attachment 5), several months after polls focusing
exclusively on Fisher and Portman began being conducted. See, e.g.,
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010
_senate_elections/ohio/toplines/toplines_ohio_senate_march_4_2010 (Rasmussen Poll). See
generally
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/oh/ohio_senate_portman_vs_fisher-
1069.html#polls (Real Clear Politics listing of all polls relevant to Ohio’s 2010 senatorial
contest).

18. The Columbus Dispatch poll described in ¶ 17 was conducted by mail between August
25, 2010 and September 3, 2010, see Rowland, supra, which was after ONO and its members
had already decided to exclude La Botz from its scheduled debates. It could therefore not have
played a part in ONO’s and its members’ decision to exclude Complainant.

19. ONO’s and its membership’s sponsorship of the debates described in ¶¶ 7-11 was
negotiated exclusively with the campaigns of Respondents, Rob Portman and Lee Fisher.
Complainant’s campaign was never contacted about his availability. He was never notified of the
negotiations with the Fisher and Portman campaigns. He was never asked by ONO, its members,
or the Fisher and Portman campaigns, about his desire to be included in the debates described in
¶¶ 7-11. Notwithstanding that he is an official, recognized party candidate on the ballot in Ohio,
5 

 
ONO’s and its corporate members’ scheduling of the debates between the Republican and
Democratic candidates for United States Senate was accomplished without the Complainant’s
knowledge. Complainant was never invited, was never notified, was never informed of any
criteria used for deciding who would be in the debates, and was never afforded any opportunity
to demonstrate that he satisfied any “pre-existing objective criteria” justifying his inclusion in the
debates.

20. Complainant learned of the negotiations surrounding the debates described in ¶¶ 7-11
only because he read a news article in the July 20, 2010 issue of the Columbus Dispatch
reporting that negotiations were under way. See Jonathan Riskind, Debate details lie ahead for
Fisher, Portman, The Columbus Dispatch, July 20, 2010 (Attachment 6). On July 25, 2010, La
Botz published a letter in the Columbus Dispatch complaining about his exclusion from the
discussions. See Attachment 7. During the six weeks that followed, Complainant was not
contacted by any member of the ONO about the debates.

21. On August 23, 2010, Mr. La Botz’s campaign created an online petition for open and
inclusive political debates. The La Botz campaign directed the petition toward the attention of
Ohio’s Secretary of State and asked that the Secretary of State intervene. See
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/petition_for_inclusive_political_debates_in_ohio. On
September 5, 2010, following the ONO’s announcement that only Portman and Fisher would be
included in its debates, La Botz sent a letter to the eight newspapers that make up the ONO
requesting that he “be included in the debates which your organization is helping to organize.”
None of the recipients responded. On September 6, 2010, Mr. La Botz personally phoned Mr.
Tom Callinan, editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer, and left a message regarding his exclusion from
the debates. Mr. Callinan never returned the call. That same day the campaign issued a press
release calling for Mr. La Botz’s inclusion in the debates. None of the ONO’s members
responded. On September 7, 2010, La Botz’s campaign launched a new online petition, this time
targeting the editors of the eight newspapers comprising the Ohio Newspaper Organization. See
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/petition_for_inclusive_senate_candidate_debates_in_ohio.

22. In response to this second online petition, Complainant received on September 8, 2010, a
response from Mr. Bruce Winges, editor and vice-president of the Akron Beacon Journal, one of
the eight corporate members of ONO. Mr. Winges admitted in an e-mail message (Attachment
8) that ONO used no pre-existing objective criteria to exclude La Botz:

The Ohio News Organization generally follows the structure used by the Commission on
Presidential Debates, which allows for only the major-party candidates to debate. The
logic is sound: In a television debate format, when time constraints limit the number of
questions and answers to be heard, it is of the utmost importance that voters hear from the
two candidates who are clearly the front-runners for the office. While we have and will
continue write about third-party candidates when warranted, including them in debates
6 

 
 limits Ohioans’ ability to hear answers from the top candidates on issues critical to the
state’s future.

23. Contrary to Mr. Winges’s assertion, the Commission on Presidential Debates does not
automatically preclude minor candidates from participating in its debates. Instead, the
Commission follows “pre-existing objective criteria,” that is, whether a candidate objectively
polls 15% of the popular vote prior to the structuring of the debate. See Becker v. FEC, 230 F.3d
381, 386 (1st Cir. 2000).

24. Mr. Winges erroneously concluded that the Commission on Presidential Debates “allows
for only the major-party candidates to debate” and that this approach was lawful under the
FECA. Mr. Winges and the ONO likewise erroneously concluded that the ONO and its corporate
members could similarly and lawfully “allow for only the major-party candidates to debate.”

25. On September 10, 2010, Complainant, through legal counsel (Mr. Mark R. Brown), sent
via United States Mail a letter (Attachment 9) to each of ONO’s corporate members advising that
the ONO’s exclusive structuring of the debates violated the FECA and demanding that he (Mr.
La Botz) be included in the debates. On September 14, 2010, ONO and its members responded
via an electronically transmitted letter to Brown. See Attachment 2. In this letter, ONO’s legal
counsel (Mr. Marion Little) asserted that “ONO considered a number of objective criteria in
determining which candidates to invite. Specifically, the ONO considered front-runner status
based on then-existing Quinnipiac and party polling, fundraising reports, in addition to party
affiliation.” (Emphasis original).

26. Mr. Little did not in his letter explain what thresholds a qualified candidate needed to
meet nor cite to any documents or information that established these alleged criteria before
invitations were handed out to Portman and Fisher.

27. The alleged criteria referred to by Mr. Little in his September 14, 2010 letter had never
been made known to Complainant or anyone else outside the small circle of eight ONO members
and the Portman and Fisher campaigns before September 14, 2010—long after the debates had
been finalized and Complainant excluded. These alleged criteria have never been made
generally and/or publicly known.

28. The alleged criteria alleged by Mr. Little are not criteria within the common meaning of
the word. A “criterion,” according to most dictionaries, is a “standard on which a judgment or
decision may be based.” See, e.g., Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/criteria). Quinnipiac polls, party polling, and fundraising reports only
constitute evidence used to satisfy whatever standard has been set. This evidence does not, and
cannot, constitute the objective standard itself. The alleged evidence cannot be the criteria.

7 

 
29. The evidence identified by Mr. Little is not even objective:

a. Quinnipiac polling from November 2009 through the present date has never
mentioned or included the Complainant’s, Mr. La Botz, name or party. See
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/oh/ohio_senate_portman_vs_fisher-
1069.html#polls (Real Clear Politics listing of all polls relevant to Ohio’s 2010 senatorial contest
including Quinnipiac polls). No objective observer would be able to come to any conclusion
about Mr. La Botz’s or the Socialist Party’s popularity relative to Fisher’s and Portman’s by
looking at these polls. The polls “push” the major candidates.

b. “Party polling” is by definition partisan and not objective.

c. “Fundraising report” is meaningless in the absence of greater specificity,

including how much fundraising was required and how it weighed in the ONO’s decisional
calculus.

30. Complainant was never asked to supply his own party polling or fundraising reports to
the ONO or any of its members. He was never invited to explain why the Quinnipiac polls were
not truly objective indicators of his support. He was never contacted by the ONO or its
members. He was never told what the ONO’s criteria were.

31. The only arguable standards identified by Mr. Little in his September 14, 2010 letter to
Mr. Brown were “front-runner” status and “party affiliation.” “Front-runner” status, however, is
too vague to constitute an objective criterion. “Party affiliation,” likewise, is too amorphous to
have any objective meaning. Moreover, the FEC has previously warned against using party
affiliation as a criterion. Indeed, its sole use is impermissible under the FEC’s rules.

32. On September 14, 2010, after receiving Mr. Little’s electronically-transmitted letter, Mr.
Brown e-mailed to Mr. Little (at his invitation) several additional questions in an effort to clarify
the ONO’s alleged criteria:

[Y]ou loosely cite "Quinnipiac and party polling, fundraising reports, in addition to party
affiliation." Can you be more specific in terms of polling and fundraising reports?

Is it your position, on behalf of the ONO, that it was prepared to only invite two
candidates to these debates?

What objective criteria did Mr. La Botz (or any other candidate) have to satisfy to be
invited to the structuring of the senatorial debates or the debates themselves?

8 

 
 …

When were these criteria reported to the campaigns or otherwise made generally
available so that qualified candidates might attempt to satisfy them?

See Attachments 11 and 12.

Mr. Brown concluded by stating that “your response does not fully resolve my client's concerns.
We stand by our demand. We believe there is good cause to believe that the ONO is violating
the FECA ….” See Attachment 11.

33. Mr. Little responded to Mr. Brown’s follow-up questions via an electronically-submitted
letter on September 16, 2010. See Attachment 13. Mr. Little did not answer any of the questions
posed, and made it clear that there was absolutely no showing Mr. La Botz could have made to
gain an invitation to the debates. No other agent representing the ONO and its corporate
members has responded to Mr. Brown’s questions.

34. On September 10, 2010, Complainant sent to Mr. Portman and Mr. Fisher letters via U.S.
Mail advising them that their participations in the debates organized by the ONO and its
corporate members violated the FECA. See Attachment 10.

35. ONO and its members relied on no pre-existing objective criteria to justify ignoring
Complainant, not inviting him, and categorically excluding him from its scheduled debates. It
provided Complainant with no notice, invitation, nor opportunity to meet whatever criteria it had
in place. ONO and its members summarily decided that they would invite only the two major-
party candidates to the staged debates because they were the two candidates of the Democratic
and Republican Parties. The two major-party candidates, Portman and Fisher, knowingly and
voluntarily participated in, constructed, and accepted ONO’s and its members’ standards. They
bargained for and accepted ONO’s exclusive invitation because they anticipated political and
financial gains that naturally are attached to major news organizations’ (print and broadcast)
exclusive coverage of campaigns and debates.

VIOLATIONS

36. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits corporations from making
contributions or expenditures “in connection with” any federal election. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a).
The FECA defines “contribution or expenditure” to include “any direct or indirect payment ... or
gift ... to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization.” Id. §
441b(b)(2).

37. The general prohibition described in ¶ 36 is subject to three exceptions, which permit
corporate funds to be used (1) for internal corporate communications; (2) for nonpartisan
9 

 
registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns by a corporation directed to its stockholders and
executive and administrative personnel and their families; and (3) for the establishment of a
separate segregated fund used for political purposes. Id. § 441b(b)(2)(A)-(C). In addition, the
FECA's general definition section also addresses the term “expenditure,” defining it to include
any payments made “for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office,” id. §
431(9)(A)(i), but not to include “nonpartisan activity designed to encourage individuals to vote
or to register to vote.” Id. 431(9)(B)(ii).

38. Under the FEC’s regulatory scheme, corporate contributions and expenditures may be
used to defray the costs of conducting candidate debates where those debates are held by
nonpartisan organizations, at least so long as those organizations and the structure of the debate
meet certain criteria. Two interrelated regulations produce this result. First, 11 C.F.R. § 110.13
delineates the requirements for debate staging organizations, debate structure, and criteria for
candidate selection necessary to qualify for exemption from the contribution and expenditure
restrictions. Debate staging organizations must either be nonprofit organizations that “do not
endorse, support, or oppose political candidates or political parties,” or broadcasters that are “not
owned or controlled by a political party, political committee or candidate.” 11 C.F.R. §
110.13(a). Next, the candidate debate must include at least two candidates and not be structured
“to promote or advance one candidate over another.” 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(b). Finally, debate
staging organizations are required to use “pre-established objective criteria to determine which
candidates may participate in the debate ….” 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(c). In particular, the FEC’s
regulations clearly state: “For general election debates, staging organizations(s) shall not use
nomination by a particular political party as the sole objective criterion to determine whether to
include a candidate in a debate.” Id.

39. The FEC has stated that “[s]taging organizations must be able to show that their objective
criteria were used to pick the participants, and that the criteria were not designed to result in the
selection of certain pre-chosen participants.” See Buchanan v. Federal Election Commission,
112 F. Supp.2d 58, 74 (D.D.C. 2000) (quoting FEC statement).

40. The court in Buchanan v. Federal Election Commission, 112 F. Supp.2d at 74, opined
that “[t]aken together, these statements by the regulation's drafters strongly suggest that the
objectivity requirement precludes debate sponsors from selecting a level of support so high that
only the Democratic and Republican nominees could reasonably achieve it.”

41. ONO’s and its corporate members’ actions violate the FECA’s ban on corporate
contributions and 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(c) for four independent reasons: (1) ONO and its corporate
members had no “pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may
participate in the debate;” (2) ONO and its corporate members used “nomination by a particular
political party as the sole objective criterion to determine to include” Fisher and Portman in the
10 

 
debates; (3) the ONO and its members structured whatever criteria they imposed “to result in the
selection of certain pre-chosen participants;” that is, the criteria were designed so “that only the
Democratic and Republican nominees could reasonably achieve it; and (4) ONO and its
corporate members kept their criteria secret and failed to disclose them to anyone outside ONO,
its members, and the Portman and Fisher campaigns, thus denying to qualified candidates
(including La Botz) the opportunity to meet the alleged criteria.

42. ONO and its corporate members are “broadcasters” within the meaning of 11 C.F.R. §
110.13(a)(2). ONO’s members are all for-profit corporations. ONO and its corporate members
benefit financially from sponsoring debates. The only permissible mechanism for ONO and its
corporate members to stage debates involving federal candidates is for ONO and its corporate
members to comply with the terms of 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(c). Because ONO and its corporate
members have not complied with 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(a)(2), they are in violation of the FECA’s
ban on corporate contributions. See 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a).

43. Because the FECA prohibits “any candidate” from “knowingly … accept[ing] or
receiv[ing] any contribution prohibited by this section,” 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a), Fisher and Portman
are also in violation of the FECA’s ban on corporate contributions. Fisher and Portman
knowingly conspired with ONO and its corporate members to construct exclusive debates in
violation of 11 C.F.R. § 110.13(a)(2). Complainant notified the Fisher and Portman campaigns
by United States Mail on September 10, 2010 that the debates sponsored by the ONO and its
corporate members violated the FECA. Still, Fisher and Portman have chosen to participate in
the debates and knowingly accept the unlawful corporate contribution.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Complainant, Dan La Botz, respectfully requests that the Commission

investigate the allegations contained in this Complaint, declare that the Respondents are in
violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act and applicable FEC regulations, and impose
sanctions commensurate with these violations.

DEMAND FOR EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS

AND EMERGENCY RELIEF

Complainant further requests that the Commission take whatever action it may deem
necessary and appropriate to expedite its proceedings and cause emergency relief to be entered to
prevent the ONO’s planned debates from taking place without Complainant’s participation. This
includes attempting immediate conciliation under 2 U.S.C. § 437g(4)(A), instituting emergency
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in order to
obtain a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction prohibiting Respondents from

11 

 
violating the FECA, see 2 U.S.C. § 437g(6)(A), and/or referring the matter to the Attorney
General of the United States for immediate prosecution. See 2 U.S.C. § 437g(5)(C).

I swear under penalty of perjury that the allegations contained in this Complaint are, upon
information and belief, true and correct.

Sworn pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

______________________________________
Dan La Botz

Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of September, 2010.

____________________________
Notary Public

My commission expires: ________________

Respectfully submitted,

              Mark R. Brown
Attorney-at-Law
303 E. Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43210
614-236-6590
mbrown@law.capital.edu

12